Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.32 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 371 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015 [Entire Act]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nidamarti Maheshkkumar vs Statf Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 1986
E] There cannot be estoppel against the
State Government. Rules-2016 were challenged
before the Nagpur Bench. The Government while
filing the affidavit defended the rules as
per the prevailing situation then. That would
not act as an estoppel against the State
Government. Both the options are valid and
constitutional. The judgment of the Apex
Court in case of Nidamarti Maheshkumar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others is further
followed by the Apex Court in Deepak Sibal
Vs. Punjab Unlversrty reported in 1989 (2)
SCC 145 and recently by the Bombay High Court
in the judgment of Mayuri Umesh Munde Vs.
Directorate of Technical Education and others
reported in 2018 SCC Online Bombay 3536.
F] It is erroneous on the part of the
petitioners to contend that the rules have
been introduced in the midst of the admission
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 03:44:35 :::
24 wp 6460.20+
process. The NEET examination was conducted
on 13.09.2020. On 16.10.2020, the result of
NEET examination was declared. On 02.11.2020
the brochure was approved. On 03.11.2020 the
brochure was brought into force whereas
Amendment Rules-2020 are introduced on
07.09.2020. The contention that H.S.C.
examination was conducted earlier is
irrelevant. The H.S.C. examination is not
relevant for the purpose of giving admission
to the medical seats.
Association Of The Managements Of ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 26 July, 2006
In the
said petition, the petitioners had invited
attention of the Honourable High Court to the
decision of the Honourable High Court thereby
quashing regional reservations provided in the
admission broacher of the admission process for
private Engineering Colleges, i.e. the judgmentin
the cae of Association of the Managements of
Unaided Engineering Colleges Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2006 (6)
Bom.C.R. 792, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has
specifically declared regional reservation
provided for Engineering courses by declaring that
in absence of any Statute thereby carving out
exception to the provisions of Article 15 to
provide regional quota, 70% reservation provided
on regional criteria was unconstitutional and was
beyond the authority of the committee formed for
conducting Entrance Eligibility Test. The said
decision is squarely applicable for the admission
process for Medical and allied courses. The
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 03:44:35 :::
29 wp 6460.20+
Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 03 rd May 2017
passed in WP No. 12567 of 2016 called upon the
respondents to justify how the regional
reservation provided for medical courses is
sustainable in absence of any legislation.
Jindal Stainless Ltd.& Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 November, 2016
It does not require any reasons to be
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 03:44:35 :::
21 wp 6460.20+
recorded. The other part of Section 23
suggests action can be taken by the State
Government under the rules even before these
rules are approved and if the rules are
modified or deleted subsequently by the State
Legislature and if the decision to that
effect is published in the Government Gazette
then only and that too with effect from that
date of notification the said rule will
either be deleted completely or will exist in
the modified form as may be. The said portion
of Section 23 clearly shows that anything
which has been done in exercise of the rules
earlier is also saved. This expressly, in
fact, empowers the State Government to take
the action as soon as rules have been framed
without even waiting for the approval thereof
by the State Legislature. Reliance is placed
on the judgment of the Apex Court
in case of Quarry Owners Association
Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000
(8) SCC 655 and Atlas Cycle Industries
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 03:44:35 :::
22 wp 6460.20+
Limited Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1979
(2) SCC 196. The learned Senior Advocate
also referred to the excerpts of law of
interpretation by G. P. Singh.
Deepak Sibal & Ors vs Punjab University And Another on 14 February, 1989
E] There cannot be estoppel against the
State Government. Rules-2016 were challenged
before the Nagpur Bench. The Government while
filing the affidavit defended the rules as
per the prevailing situation then. That would
not act as an estoppel against the State
Government. Both the options are valid and
constitutional. The judgment of the Apex
Court in case of Nidamarti Maheshkumar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others is further
followed by the Apex Court in Deepak Sibal
Vs. Punjab Unlversrty reported in 1989 (2)
SCC 145 and recently by the Bombay High Court
in the judgment of Mayuri Umesh Munde Vs.
Directorate of Technical Education and others
reported in 2018 SCC Online Bombay 3536.
F] It is erroneous on the part of the
petitioners to contend that the rules have
been introduced in the midst of the admission
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 03:44:35 :::
24 wp 6460.20+
process. The NEET examination was conducted
on 13.09.2020. On 16.10.2020, the result of
NEET examination was declared. On 02.11.2020
the brochure was approved. On 03.11.2020 the
brochure was brought into force whereas
Amendment Rules-2020 are introduced on
07.09.2020. The contention that H.S.C.
examination was conducted earlier is
irrelevant. The H.S.C. examination is not
relevant for the purpose of giving admission
to the medical seats.
Christian Medical College Vellore vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2020
The Medical Council of India introduced
National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET Test)
based on the principle of One Nation One Test and
to ensure that duty of the Medical Council of
India to maintain standards of Medical Education
is fulfilled. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
the case of Christian Medical College, Vellore and
others Vs. Union of India has confirmed the
authority of the Medical Council of India to
introduce such test and accordingly the admission
process to be carried out on the basis of the
merit list carved out of the NEET Examination for
admission to the courses of Medical Education is
practically implemented since academic year 2015-
2016 onwards.